RF Reg. Petition - Rockfish Nearshore Draft Petition

MooMoo Outdoors, Mark L, JoeDubC, Nando, IsaoK, and I have been working together for the last two months to draft a draft rockfish regulation petition.
We reviewed other states' regulations, reviewed other petitions, and discussed with CDFW, and a Groundfish Advisory Sub-Panel member.
We decided to draft a petition where all members can agree 100%. 
The summary of the draft petition requires the use of descending devices and non-motorized vessel exception to the 50-fathom depth restriction.
We plan to submit the petition two weeks prior to the San Jose FGC meeting (October 11-12, 2023, at Scottish Rite Center- 2455 Masonic Drive, San Jose, CA 95125). 

We hope many of NCKA members will show up to the FGC meeting.

You can show your support by completing this simple survey form: https://forms.office.com/r/g2eDqsrW8R

We will be distributing similar information to other related groups.

One favor I have to ask is to refrain from making negative comments.  We understand that this petition doesn't represent everyone's opinion, but we tried to represent the majority.

Thank you.

The last attachment is a pdf file of the entire draft petition.

Paul

thanks for doing this Paul!
Completed!

Scotty

thanks for doing this Paul!
Completed!

Scotty

Hi Scotty

My work is a small portion. 
I think it might be just beginning.
I'd rather be fishing than this...

Paul

Hey Paul,

Thank you so much for organizing this endeavor, and keeping it on track. It was a lot of work but I believe it was worth the effort.

We took into consideration comments from NCKA, Coastside, and other forums to come up with compromise of all the different opinions on this issue.

Maintaining healthy fish stocks was of high priority which is why the petition requires descending devices.

When it comes time for the meeting we hope to have support from many kayak anglers.

Thanks Paul! Completed.

thanks for doing this Paul!
Completed!

Scotty

Hi Scotty

My work is a small portion. 
Thank you for your prompt reply.
I'd rather be fishing than this...

Paul

thanks for doing this Paul!
Completed!
Scotty

+1

Non-motorized and motorized need to be defined.  Are sailing vessels motorized or non-motorized?  Battery powered motors?  Is there a horsepower cutoff?  Why 19’ limit? 

I appreciate all the effort that goes into something like this.  Good job.

Non-motorized and motorized need to be defined.  Are sailing vessels motorized or non-motorized?  Battery powered motors?  Is there a horsepower cutoff?  Why 19’ limit? 

I appreciate all the effort that goes into something like this.  Good job.

We had a definition for non-motorized one point but decided not to include it in our petition since the term was commonly used already in the regulation.
We picked 19' to cover most of the fishing kayaks.  The longest popular model I know is the Stealth PROFISHA 575. Length: 5.75m / 18.86 ft.

Paul

Thanks for the well thought out petition. I have also shared with the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers forum.

Non-motorized and motorized need to be defined.  Are sailing vessels motorized or non-motorized?  Battery powered motors?  Is there a horsepower cutoff?  Why 19’ limit? 

I appreciate all the effort that goes into something like this.  Good job.

We had a definition for non-motorized one point but decided not to include it in our petition since the term was commonly used already in the regulation.
We picked 19' to cover most of the fishing kayaks.  The longest popular model I know is the Stealth PROFISHA 575. Length: 5.75m / 18.86 ft.

Paul

First off, thanks to all involved for this.  This is great stuff.  One thing I'd add is that the federal regulations uses 16' as a delineating length for carriage requirements.  I have no idea if aligning with federal would help, but figured I'd mention it.

Non-motorized and motorized need to be defined.  Are sailing vessels motorized or non-motorized?  Battery powered motors?  Is there a horsepower cutoff?  Why 19’ limit? 

I appreciate all the effort that goes into something like this.  Good job.

We had a definition for non-motorized one point but decided not to include it in our petition since the term was commonly used already in the regulation.
We picked 19' to cover most of the fishing kayaks.  The longest popular model I know is the Stealth PROFISHA 575. Length: 5.75m / 18.86 ft.

Paul

First off, thanks to all involved for this.  This is great stuff.  One thing I'd add is that the federal regulations uses 16' as a delineating length for carriage requirements.  I have no idea if aligning with federal would help, but figured I'd mention it.

Nonmotorized is used in the regulations but undefined.  It could be a sticking point is all.  I hope to see this petition get traction.  I found a picture for the petition.

Non-motorized and motorized need to be defined.  Are sailing vessels motorized or non-motorized?  Battery powered motors?  Is there a horsepower cutoff?  Why 19’ limit? 

I appreciate all the effort that goes into something like this.  Good job.

Paul after reading comments here i think we should re-include the definition we came up with. I.e. max 18.5' and no backup motor. And explain the reason for the length cutoff (i.e. less people on board, less take per vessel).

Non-motorized and motorized need to be defined.  Are sailing vessels motorized or non-motorized?  Battery powered motors?  Is there a horsepower cutoff?  Why 19’ limit? 

I appreciate all the effort that goes into something like this.  Good job.

Paul after reading comments here i think we should re-include the definition we came up with. I.e. max 18.5' and no backup motor. And explain the reason for the length cutoff (i.e. less people on board, less take per vessel).

If you do define it, make sure you include the language "As used in this section", otherwise it could apply too broadly to too many unintended areas of title 14. 

Non-motorized and motorized need to be defined.  Are sailing vessels motorized or non-motorized?  Battery powered motors?  Is there a horsepower cutoff?  Why 19’ limit? 

I appreciate all the effort that goes into something like this.  Good job.

Paul after reading comments here i think we should re-include the definition we came up with. I.e. max 18.5' and no backup motor. And explain the reason for the length cutoff (i.e. less people on board, less take per vessel).

If you do define it, make sure you include the language "As used in this section", otherwise it could apply too broadly to too many unintended areas of title 14.

We will evaluate your comment during the workgroup's next meeting. 
Thank you.

Paul